A/HRC/42/28 since 2009 was ended with the execution of a prisoner convicted of aggravated murder in 2018, an offence that carries the mandatory death penalty. 49 Reintroduction of the mandatory death penalty, as has occurred in Mauritania in 2018 and Brunei Darussalam in 2019, would be contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, on the Human Rights Committee’s interpretation.50 23. A number of States have sought to justify resumption of the use of the death penalty as a response to rising crime levels. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated that outside factors, including crime rates, could not be attributed to a particular prisoner on death row, so execution of that individual as a demonstration of strength of the criminal justice system would be arbitrary. 51 In the Philippines and Sri Lanka, government officials have called for reintroduction of the death penalty in response to drug-related crimes, and in Malawi, government officials have called for resumption of the use of the death penalty for crimes against persons with albinism. 52 As there is no evidence that the death penalty in fact has any impact on levels of crime, 53 resumption of the use of the death penalty on such grounds would be disproportionate to the stated aim of crime reduction, and accordingly unreasonable. C. Special courts or processes 24. Resumption of or increase in the use of the death penalty for crimes of terrorism in particular can involve violations of the right to a fair trial, such as the trial of civilians by military or special courts, or other violations related to due process and fair trial guarantees. The Human Rights Committee has stated that, as a rule, civilians should not be tried for capital crimes before military tribunals.54 Justice Project Pakistan reports that in Pakistan at least 80 prisoners executed after the lifting of the moratorium had been convicted by special antiterrorist courts. 55 In Cameroon, it is reported that military courts are primarily responsible for a significant increase in the number of death sentences. Several special procedure mandate holders have called upon the United States to dismantle the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay and transfer the detainees charged with a criminal offence to United States federal facilities on the mainland so that they can be prosecuted before ordinary courts, in compliance with international due process and fair trial standards, including those related to the independence of judges and lawyers. 56 25. In an effort to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, some States have introduced expedited procedures for certain offences. The stricter due process guarantees that should apply to death penalty cases mean that such cases may be incompatible with requisite standards if expedited procedures do not permit adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence.57 In China, revisions to the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 8 See www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/thailand-countrys-first-execution-since-2009-adeplorable-move/. General comment No. 36, para. 37. A/69/265, paras. 103–104. Submissions of Harm Reduction International and Reprieve and joint submission of Advocates for Human Rights and the World Coalition against the Death Penalty. See, for example, Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 4th ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 325–330 and 345. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, para. 45; and general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 45. Submission of Justice Project Pakistan. “Open letter to the Government of the United States of America on the occasion of the 14th anniversary of the opening of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility” issued on 11 January 2016 by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the ChairRapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights; and submission of the American Civil Liberties Union. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, para. 41.